‘I’M Sorry, Was That An Apology?’

Suddenly, everybody is interested in etiquette’s favorite ploy for damage control, the apology. No transgression is considered too fresh or too historic to require an apology before supper.

A dirty deed is hardly completed before its perpetrator is apologizing or being universally prompted to do so.

The apology is a wonderful thing, indispensable for soothing ruffled if not raging feelings in a volatile society, and she is delighted that it has been rediscovered.

But this is the same society that not long ago invented a way of apologizing while simultaneously delivering the blame back to the injured party: “I’m sorry you feel that way.”

Even that statement contained more self-condemnation than many could stand, and the fingers-crossed-behind-the-back apology soon turned into “I can understand that you have a problem with that” and finally, “I hear you.” For acknowledging having caused offense, “I hear you” is half a step above “Stop crying about it, or I’ll really give you something to cry about.”

But now the real apology is back: “I did it. I don’t know what I was thinking. I must have been out of my mind. I feel terrible. I promise it will never happen again.”

Poor Miss Manners thought that this sudden rash of apologizing would result in a more conciliatory atmosphere. In her dreams.

Everybody is still mad. People who receive apologies first question their sincerity and then denounce them as being useless. “Those are just words,” they will say bitterly.

People who make apologies turn indignant if their wrong-doing is ever mentioned afterward. “I said I was sorry - what more can I do?” they say bitterly.

The result is more unpleasant racket than ever. A polite form intended to make peace has become yet another cause of hostilities.

Without wanting to discourage the habit of apologizing, Miss Manners would like to calm things down. She can’t help feeling it might help if all these upset people knew what an apology is - and what it is not.

An apology is not an excuse, and it lacks the power to wipe out the misdeed and its consequences. What it is, is a retroactive statement of intent. How well it works, and how soon, depends on its being weighed with a number of other factors about the offense:

Is it plausible that there could have been no intention involved or was there a plausible motive?

If it was an accident, was it unavoidable or did recklessness contribute?

Is it a repeat offense?

How much damage was done?

Is it possible to make restitution and could the offender do so?

Thus, the person who apologizes for pushing against you in a crowded bus indicates that she didn’t mean it and probably couldn’t help it; with no damage done, you will probably forgive her entirely and forget the incident. Unless, of course, it’s the same person who’s been shoving you every morning, even when the two of you were the only passengers on the bus.

But the person who bashes you with his car needs to provide an explanation as well as an apology; plenty of damage having been done, he will have to face financial and possibly criminal charges. And no matter how sincerely he regrets it, it still goes on his record.

The apology is nonetheless enormously satisfying, and those who have been injured yearn to have that fact acknowledged by the person who did it. Many a judge has heard a victorious plaintiff say, “I wouldn’t have minded so much if she had said she was sorry,” or even “I wouldn’t have taken things this far if he’d only apologized.”

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Judith Martin United Features Syndicate